Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

rmnoon writes "Apparently Japanese TV and bloggers have just discovered Disney's theme park in China, where young children can be part of the Magic Kingdom and interact with their favorite characters (like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and the Seven Dwarfs). The park's slogan is 'Because Disneyland is Too Far,' and there's even an Epcot-like dome. The only problem? Disney didn't build it, and they didn't authorize it. What's more? It's state-owned!"

I find it ironic that copyright law was getting so much attention recently because of the AACS key being posted everywhere, and now we see this. While I am against the current length of copyright, this sort of blatant infringement (especially of newer characters such as Shrek) is outrageous. It has been known and understood for years that China doesn't care about IP laws, whether it is patents or copyrights. Many cars and trucks sold in China (by Chinese companies) are copies of Hyundai, Toyota, or GM designs. When I say copies, I don't just mean visually; many times the parts for the Chinese model of a vehicle can be interchanged with those for the original design. It's disgusting how much the WTO has allowed China to get away with. If this story ever makes it to the mainstream press in the United States, I suspect it might actually cause a significant outcry by the public.

At some point, the people of this country will begin to recognize the true costs of doing business with China.

I believe Oxford owns the copyright to the King James Version. America pretty much ignored that and it is in the public domain in this country. That would probably be the biggest IP disrespect in the history of mankind.I think IP respect between countries is necessary for economic ties between countries and for the greater good, but a country doesn't have to abide by another country's laws if they don't want to. However, agreeing to being in the WTO may change responsibilities.

The KJV is "Crown Copyright" (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copyright/ind ex.htm [opsi.gov.uk]), ie, not copyrighted by an individual but by the monarchy. Presumably it would go into public domain 80 years after the UK became a republic, but I bet that the incoming republican government would outdo Disney in its attempts to maintain copyright on government documents (which is what Crown Copyright mainly applies to). Most of the rest of the world doesn't acknowledge Crown Copyright, but we have to here in the UK!

By the way, there's a petition here [pm.gov.uk] to the British government to abolish Crown Copyright. I'd urge any British citizens to sign this; as well as the KJV Bible, there are numerous works under Crown Copyright which would be incredibly useful if made freely available to the general population (ordnance survey maps, for example).

not just fairy tales. The Lion King is ripped from Osamu Tezuka's Jungle Taitei aka Kimba the white lion. If you check it out they took pretty much every shot (especially the pride rock) also they changed it from his evil aunt to evil uncle and from mother to father dieing and bam! they call it original. In 2002 or 03 there was an asian film festival in Ontario, Canada i believe, and they were going to show Jungle Taitei and Disney sued them or tried to stop them with some severe act of some kind. Talk about cover ups!

Most interviews I read with insiders (on and off the record) said that no one consciously copied Kimba, but some of the animators quickly realised they were and began making jokes about it in the office. The better question is "Was there corporate mal intent?" I haven't ready any indication there was, and that the animators and writers may have consciously or unconsciously borrowed from Simba putting Disney in an awkward situation.Straight Dope has the best answer to this (they talked to the animators no

It's really a mixture of points. The idea is that Disney uses a lot of stuff from the public domain, but Disney is also directly responsible for the effectively infinite copyright length which prevents anything copyrighted from ever entering the public domain again.

It's wrong for china to steal stuff like Shrek or whatever else they've developed in recent years. I'd say it's morally just fine for them to steal old stuff like Mickey Mouse which by all rights should have been in the public domain decades ago.

I live in Japan, and I saw this story on the news a couple of days ago. The most interesting thing was they asked an employee at the park what she thought about copying Disney Hong Kong and her response was "They copied us." It wouldn't surprise me if that isn't the official required response...

> It has been known and understood for years that China doesn't care about IP laws
Of cause they do not care about your laws. They are a country for gods sake. They can come up with their own laws. The only concern here are international treaties. While I agree that all countries should adhere to these treaties, I would like to point out that china breaks other international treaties that are far more important. (Various human rights issues for example).
But at least China does not claim to be the best

You may not understand how world works in reality.Laws and trade agreements are a result of geopolitical, economical and military power over other nations. China doesn't fear retaliation from US or other countries, so they pretty much do as they please.Good for them. Not so good for us.

Who beat who with economic sticks?China holds a huge reserve in US dollars - so much that even threatening to ofload a reasonable chuck of it would significantly weaken the dollar in the money markets (even more than it already is)

If they actually dumped that money then the US could be in serious trouble.

Think the cost of all imports to the US effectively doubling or more in cost (including oil), huge inflation, probably massive interest rises - it would not be a pretty picture for the US.

Actually, it's exactly what Disney is built on. Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, Pinocchio, Snow White, and oh so many more, are characters not invented by The Disney Company, but appropriated from either folk tales or popular stories fallen out of copyright -- and then slapped with an ever expanding copyright thanks to Disney's lobbying efforts. So while the original Pinocchio: Tale of a Puppet is long out of copyright (and also was at the time Disney appropriated it), The Disney Company's Pinocchio character is still copyrighted in America (I don't know how long time Chinese copyright law extends over). But the fact is that Disney's character is just as much part of popular culture as Carlo Collodi's original story was at the time Disney took it.

So why is it treated totally different by law? Copyright law is totally unjust and unfair in a historical perspective, now made to protect certain companies from what they originally profited from. But that's in America. Other countries don't necessarily have copyright protection for as long time.

Nope Pinocchio the Disney film came out exactly 50 years after Carlo Collodi the Italian author of "Le avventure di Pinocchio" died. Which means that it was in production when it was in copyright, and Disney released it as soon as they no longer needed to pay copyrights.

Or for something more recent you might try reading the Curious Clownfish [amazon.com] by Eric Maddern published 1987 and compare it to the Disney film Finding Nemo and ask why Eric Maddern has not received one penny from Disney.

Disney like copyright when it suites them, and at no other time. What I would like is for Disney to be forced to pay back compensation to the holders of the Pinocchio and other copyrights with interest for the time they infringed on their copyrights based on the new exteneded copyright periods. If the mouse deservers 90 years in the eyes of Disney, then so does Pinocchio. Perhaps then they would not be so keen on extending copyrights.

Yes! Original Disney characters like Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White must be protected! Taking other creators' characters and making millions out of them without paying a cent to those creators in return is a crime!

Yes! Original Disney characters like Peter Pan, Winnie the Pooh, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White must be protected! Taking other creators' characters and making millions out of them without paying a cent to those creators in return is a crime!

Actually, Peter Pan and Winnie the Pooh were bought and paid for by Disney. There was some controversy by the family of Milne over the transfer, but those two are completely legit, and Disney is within its rights to protect those fully.

The others, as the sibling post reports (but missing the joke), are public domain. Disney's representations of them are fairly copyrightable, but ANYONE can write a story called "Snow White", "Sleeping Beauty", etc. and be untouchable. There's a line of books and DVDs from a company called "Good Times" productions that does cartoons and CGI on almost every Disney PD-based story, and they're all within the letter of the law. Some of them are quite good.

Forgive the blunt nature of my statement, but you seem to lack a basic understanding of just when copyright is appropriate. This isn't a free use issue, like the battles over media here in the States. This is a clear and total violation of intellectual property - even on a corporate scale. What's more, it's government sponsored.

This isn't about whether the Disney execs can afford another yacht, this is about the basic validity of IP law and what it's designed to protect.

Zippo currently estimates its sales are artificially lowered by 25% a year (likely a high estimate, but probably not too high) because of people purchasing Chinese-made copies. Zippo is a company in one town with one factory, and they recently had to lay off workers. Does your opinion change because of that?

Would your opinion change if you learned that my father risks losing a significant amount of money - one that may never be known - should someone steal the work of the inventor he's backing? Would it change if you knew we're an average middle class family with enough, but not a lot?

right... I think you missed the point that we have a hundred + billion dollar trade deficit with china, ie they are in a position to screw us much more than the other way around. When government "borrows" money that capital does not just magically appear, we borrow from china and others, I don't think china would be very interested in financing our little blockade of their exports, they could easily send the US economy into a serious tail spin as they own more and more of the US every day.

China has the US by the short hairs, but they can't pull very hard....yet. Until the value of the US market is below a critical percentage of China's overall exports, they will wait. After that point, it will be a good idea to start learning to speak Chinese.

China is to nations what Microsoft is to corporations, except far worse since they don't have to worry about legal issues beyond giving them lip service. They also have nukes and lots of tanks.

The saddest fact is that we can only blame ourselves. Congress continues to float bonds to finance our addiction to deficit spending. China buys them up secure in the knowledge that there is no political will in the US to actually balance a budget. Not only do we get completely outclassed in trade, they also are our banker-to whom we owe big time.

The upshot is we buy things we can't afford from China, paid for with money we borrowed from China.

"China is to nations what Microsoft is to corporations..." Interesting thought -- and makes valid points about both China and Microsoft.

This story recalled for me William Gibson's description (in a Wired article a few years ago) of Indonesia (I think it was) as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty". To which this story brings new meaning. China is Microsoft with Tanks.... -- nice slogan.

"How do you greet an overlord in Chinese" you ask? "Welcome to Wal Mart!"

China is to nations what Microsoft is to corporations, except far worse since they don't have to worry about legal issues beyond giving them lip service. They also have nukes and lots of tanks.

So they are a bit like the US, then?

While I certainly dislike the (genuinely) Fascist tendencies of that particular "Communist" country, there is quite a lot of hypocrisy in the US about China's behaviour. It seems to me that whenever another country starts to be genuinely strong, the Americans have this need to start painting it as some kind of cancerous growth, while they have been, especially during this millennium, very enamored of the idea of an empire of their own.

The Chinese are under no obligation to be Americans' pawns, just as much as you wouldn't agree to the Americans being pawns to the French through the UN, or somesuch yankee horror scenario. The USA is all about looking for one's own benefit, both on an individual and national level, so you shouldn't complain when someone else does the same.

The fact that you're about to get financially pwned by the Chinese is your own fault -- the Chinese lend you if you're willing to burn through money like there's no tomorrow, and you'd better just deal with the consequences. I am awaiting with eagerness to see whether an arrogant China is better than an arrogant America... it's noteworthy that China has never been particularly imperialistic outside its own borders. World-domination is not neccessarily their goal, as long as they are secure and strong within them. Whatever they do inside in their gulags might be the downside, but change regarding that will have to come from among their own people anyway. You just can't bomb westernization into the hearts of 1.3 billion people.

All true, but at the moment it's more "Mutual Assured Destruction" than a smart bomb -- eg, it would take China more than a year to offload all its dollar based assets, but the dollar would tank the moment they started to do so -- crushing the value of their assets and collapsing their economy by an equal amount.

China hasn't been socialist since their 1978 reforms. Disney hasn't been capitalist (in the sense of participating in a free market economy) since they bought the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998, and probably weren't before then.

If you're on the side of capitalism, support China. If you agree with Disney's destruction of the public domain, support them.

Sometimes, you have to take a side. Backing up one side or another on this issue doesn't make you back them up on all issues: supporting Disney's IP doesn't mean you like their labor practices, or, supporting cultural appropriation and re-use on China's behalf doesn't mean you like their foreign policy.

But there is a substantive issue here, and it makes no sense to try to squirm out of it.

My view? The first world has mass-exported so much cultural material - Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, The USS Enterprise, Darth Vader, Batman - characters that have become embedded in our subconscious and become part of the fabric of mass culture itself - that I think it is only natural that it will break the boundaries of intellectual property, particularly in the peripheries outside the first world, where representations and images flow with a different logic entirely. What is really sad, actually, is that in Latin America, you see craftspeople making (illegal) ceramic and knitted versions of branded merchandise. The sad this isn't that - the sad thing is that, because they don't feel intimidated by IP law, that they are really being more creative/productive and original than people who merely consume "officially licensed" merchandise.

You cannot hoodwink them. They have seen a better margin and a better chance of exploitation. The only thing that can stop a publically listed business from following the scent trail of higher profit in the name of an abstract concept is nuking the stock market. After all it is what drives this in the first place.

The reasons for Chinese imports being cheap are twofold - complete lack of environmental control and use of slave labour. Both can be dealt with by putting the relevant legal frameworks in place.

The framework for the environmental is very similar to the one established for food imports. All it requires is application to all goods. No exemptions. Licensing of importers and mandatory certification. Same as for food.

The labour is actually a comparatively minor addition compared to the rest as far as modern manufacturing is concerned. Badly payed and badly treated labour delivers bad quality product (if that was not the case we would have still be owning slaves like the ancient egyptians).

Once the primary cost factor which is the environment is put on equal footing you can compete with Chinese on quality, efficiency and innovation. Just look at the Wiki page of the same Cheery motors. They do not have any of their own R&D. If it was not for European R&D (and to lesser extent american R&D) they would be dead straight away. Add to that mandatory environmental control to which European (and American) businesses are subjected on a day to day basis and they will fade into their internal market for the next century.

The reasons for Chinese imports being cheap are twofold - complete lack of environmental control and use of slave labour.

Jesus Christ. Have you ever been to China?

The reason for their extemely low prices is simple supply and demand. Labor is dead-cheap because there is so much of it. I got a beautiful painting about an hour outside of Guangzhou for about a buck twenty five. The painting is a very large, rougly seven-feet wide one. For the record, the painter was not a slave. It's just that that's the price he can charge, since there were literally thousands of others I could have gone to.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't any slave labor in China. I have no idea; there probably are some instances of it, just like there probably are instances of it here in the US. But it is simply not what drives their economy. It's not even remotely related to their success as an economy.

Pollution is another matter. I've never been to a traditionally smoggy city in the US (say, Houston or LA) but Guangzhou had a blanket of smog a couple hundred feet above the surface at all times... I can actually remember the air being "heavy." It was a releif to get out to countryside, so we could see the sun again.

But I have been to plenty of places with similar labour costs. In fact, I have lived in one for a while.

While what you are telling is correct for a painting, textiles and other "light industry", labour is only a minor part of the BOM for an heavy industrial product like a car, bicycle or modern toys. Environmental control on the other side is. It may account for 40%+ of the costs of plastics, 30%+ of the costs of metals (those pesky sulfur emissions controls, water quality control, cleanup of land destroyed by open mining, etc), 70%+ for some paints and coatings, 100%+ for some electronic components and so on.

Let's apply that to a pedal cycle - you have around 1 hour labour costs during initial assembly (everything including tires and all components), rest is BOM. The BOM difference between Chinese plastics, metal, tires, etc and _fully_ western Europe makes due to environmental regulations and mandatory acceptance for recycling for a bicycle can be close to 100 pounds (200$) at the moment. Compared to that the labour cost difference is negligible. If we look at any other product that makes heavy use of metal or plastics we get roughly the same proportions.

Further to this, if we look back at "light industry" like clothing the difference in quality between sweatshop labour and labour working in better conditions is also quite apparent. Compare a shirt made in China with one done in Bangladesh, Cambodja or Turkey. The quality difference is striking and these can nowdays often compete on quality alone (if the market is not perverted by "branding").

If China is left to compete on price of labour alone with the BOM costs equalized by mandatory environmental controls it will lose straight away to everyone else on quality alone.

Actually I hope you're already used to it. GM already lost a case - several years ago - where a Chinese manufacturer ripped off, bolt-for-bolt, panel-for-panel, an entire car and then released it to market BEFORE GM did! Brazen as hell. Toyota has also had problems in China for theft and such. I think when foreigners wake up to the fact that there's not really that much money to be made in China they might not be so enthusiastic about jumping in. For instance, huge numbers of cars are made over there,

Get used to it.Nothing a good, structured tax/tariff structure can't correct with regards to allowing shoddy imports to undercut quality. The idea is to reverse the damage done by that region of the world to our domestic industries (who seem to have done better in terms of quality when allowed to build domestic). Just enough that companies get the hint not to use countries like Mexico and regions of the world such as Asia to undercut domestic labor- which would be used as a retraining fund.

..that the war between China and the United States is more of a legislative and economic one fought with dollars and cents. China and the Taliban don't need to take us by force, they simply need to take over our economy. China by manufacturing and selling unauthorized patented and copywritten equipment and now theme parks. We do all of the research and development, and they sell it at cost with no reimbursement, thus destroying our system of innovation, and allowing them to turn the world back into the stone age. The Taliban will take us by causing us to put all of our tax payers dollars into ammo.

It's very important that we complain and moan about China, because we need someone to blame for the coming fall in living standards in the US. We also need to be painfully aware and forever complaining about other people's social problems so that we can be in continual denial about the ones that exist at our own doorstep.

It's in our local elitist's interests that we are unaware of the problems that they cause.

Are you saying that because Europe wasn't able to prevent the US from infringing, therefore America shouldn't try to prevent China from doing the same?

Replace "Shouldn't" with "can't". What incentive do the Chinese have of revising their law to suit mega corps like Disney or GM? You cannot force it by arms because the conflict would annihilate civilization as we know it. You cannot do ti economically because the US has willingly entangled their economy deeply with china's. Your left with make a lot of noise and pretending your doing something.

Why is Disney now part of the United States? There are more disneylands around the world than here. They sell more worldwide than in the US. They're an international conglomerate that profits people in many, many countries and many areas.

It's like Ikea. Ikea may have started in Finland, but they employ and enrich a heck of a lot of Americans. Toyota might have started in japan, but the US would take quite a hit if they suddenly wholesale pulled out of here.

The world is not a bunch of governments ruling over these little corporations who spread their tentrils forth for the motherland. Companies superceed governments. Sony exists as much in England and Europe as Japan, and does as much R&D around the world as in their original country. Sega was started by an American in Japan, and whose japanese-sounding name is actually an abbreviation for SErvice and GAmes. We think of Burger King as an amercan company because it started here. In Thailand, they think of Burger King as a Thai company, because the people who work there are Thai, the people who eat there are Thai, the people who make the Thai commercials for Burger King are Thai. Any given piece of electronics is likely to have bits designed in the US, EU, China, India, and many other places.

Companies are not part of a government. They are their own entities in a parallel system.

OBL has openly written that they are out to destroy our economy. He wants us in the same boat that Russia was. So far, W. is helping him out.

As to China, they are trying to position themselves to own the world economy and then control countries in manners that they see fit(a MUCH larger USA with a nastier attitude). It is not the stealing of ideas that is doing this. It is the fact that they have tied their money to our money at a fixed rate. If it was allowed to float, then it would have increased in a big way by now. Others have dredged up the typical neo-con argument that this helps the economy. And for a short-term, they are correct. But it destroys the manufacturing (read tax) base. Another argument is that China holds a huge amount of our cash. And they will laugh if it falls, so long as they are in control. In the past, America had large natural resources to fall in during those times. Not anymore. What this means is that when China wants to pull the rug on us, they will be in control. And that is going to happen in about another 15 years (or less).

W.'s going to argue about the copyright and patents is almost akin to chargin Charlie Manson with litter AND making a big deal of it. It totally ignores the real problems.

What this means is that when China wants to pull the rug on us, they will be in control. And that is going to happen in about another 15 years (or less).

I doubt it. If there is one good thing that king jr has done in his utterly fucked up administration, is convice the world at large that we are armed and irrational. While china COULD try to screw over the reigning military superpower, is it really wise to poke a stick at the mad dog with all the nukes and carriers? 15 years from now, we might be poor

The minute we start throwing nukes at China because they stopped making our pink sunglasses with hello kitty on them, we will get nukes coming from Russia and forget about any support from Europe. By the way, China has nukes as well and can zap our satellites with lasers. Do you really think they will be a winner when it all ends?

Or you actually meant that we are quite "sane" and it is only the Chinese who __think__ we are crazy... It seems you underestimate them too much. We are on the piedestal in front

I presume you're talking about "them" calling "us" and saying "we've decided not to buy your government-issued debt anymore." Problem is, what would they invest their 1 trillion in government funds in then? It's not like there are that many - if any - safer alternatives? Euro bonds? Uhhh... what was that long-term growth rate again? Yen? yeah right, the Chinese? Swiss Francs? Uhh... sure it's a hard currency, but how much of it can you liquidate when you need to? Dollars are still the best place to park savings.

Also, China exports vast quantities to the US - they'd never cause our economy to "crash" if they could help it. It would create massive social unrest over there (and they can barely keep a cap on what they've got happening even right now). China's going to have many, many significant, huge, social problems in the mid-term. Their "one country, two systems" thing is inherently unstable and will fail. If China ever copies the fine pre-handover Hong Kong example which the British left the world, then move over U.S., because we're going to get trounced. In the meantime, China will simply remain a cheap place to manufacture lower-technology goods. I include computers and HDTVs in the "lower-technology goods" category. They've got far to much to lose to damage us that way.

But one of the above posters is totally correct: The real threat - the one thing that could bring us down - is ourselves. FDR was right about fear. If the US goes down, it'll be because we did it to ourselves.

"I presume you're talking about "them" calling "us" and saying "we've decided not to buy your government-issued debt anymore." Problem is, what would they invest their 1 trillion in government funds in then? It's not like there are that many - if any - safer alternatives? Euro bonds? Uhhh... what was that long-term growth rate again? Yen? yeah right, the Chinese? Swiss Francs? Uhh... sure it's a hard currency, but how much of it can you liquidate when you need to? Dollars are still the best place to park savings."

What unutterable bollox. The US is the most insane investment a person could make right now. While the sheer inertia of trading methods keeps the dollar popular, the dollar itself if far from it...

Sterling, Euros, Yen!!!, they are all far more sensible places to put your cash these days, and the US is just terrified by this.

Of the two, I'd buy shares in Disneyland China (and no I don't care two hoots about American copyright law if America doesn't care two hoots about a nation's sovereignty - yes I talking Iraq - and not its not irrelivant. They're haveing the equiverlant of a 9/11 every month. That, to my mind is relevant in almost any discussion until it ends).

No I don't hate America. But I sure as hell hate its current polotics, and fundeMentalist interpretation of capitalism. Which as many posts have already pointed out, mean that in practice, China is actually closer to 'true' capitalism than they.

Yes, yes. This is Flamebait. But so is this agressive hypocracy spouted by the money mad global expantionist, overly competative expounders of "China is evil". And its getting on my nerves. [/rant]

California, alone, if it were a country, would be ranked 8th in the world economically. It produces some four or five times more agriculture than the whole isle of England.

The US dollar being down is also a plus as it grows trade -- cheaper for countries whose monetary unit is pricier than ours to invest here. Growing trade is always a good thing.

The US economy is always changing, but by no means is it faltering or going away. Quite the contrary, it is the economic engine of the world. This may change, sure, but not any time soon. The dollar is still THE money of the world....

What unutterable bollox. The US is the most insane investment a person could make right now.

What an apt description of your own point. Are you sure that the US is the most insane investment a person could make? Over the Zimbabwean dollar? Iraqi dinar? Kyat? Yes, currently GBP and Euros are beating the dollar (I wouldn't go for yen personally), but it's hardly an insane investment. It's more of a personal judgement on what you invest it, but the dollar is so far from worthless it's an extreme understatement to call what you said simple hyperbole. The idea that inertia is the only thing propping up the dollar's value is patently absurd. There are many things you can criticize the US for, but fiscal policy is definitely not one of them. The only countries even in the same echelon are the UK (who is IMHO slightly better) and the Swiss.

The pound (GBP) passed the $2 mark in value recently, aside from small fluctuations our currency has been strengthening against the dollar for the last 10 years. The pound is stable and a far better currency in which to invest. We're a tiny country yet still an economic powerhouse. The long term stability of the pound is part reason for that. What's more is there is no indication that the current trend will reverse.At this rate if it weren't for the US's strict immigration laws I could sell my property here

Considering Disney has made a big deal about people getting tattoos of Disney characters, I can't imagine this will go over well. Actually, I didn't really believe it until I saw a couple other sources.

I don't think you understand. China is a country. A large one. Disney is a company, one whose wishes are only enforced because some countries (eg. U.S., European countries) have agreed to use their police and border guards to enforce Disney's wishes. Clearly China doesn't agree to use its police/border guards in that way, and unless a small company has a remote chance of taking on a large country (be it economically or militarily), Disney really doesn't have much say in the matter. (granted, futuristic SciFi novels about corporations having more power than countries are interesting to read, but we're not there yet)

Of course, the US government is more or less controlled by companies, including Disney. Thus the WTO complaint mentioned in the article. It'll be interesting to see if the US government is willing to actually do anything serious over this though.

What the hell is futuristic about this? We have been there for a long time!!

Who the hell do you think conquered India? The British? Well, yes, I grant you they were British, but they sure as hell weren't the British Government. It was the British East India Company (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey), who were big enough at the time to make Ford, Coca Cola and Microsoft look like a crocked hat.

Note in the battle mentioned above, John Company fought against the Indian Princes and the French East India Company.

The equivalent today would be Halliburton fighting in Iraq against the Iraquis and Shell.

Last time I checked, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was in Grimm's Fairy Tales, a compilation of European folk stories that existed long before Walt Disney or copyright/trademark laws. As the dad of three, it bugs me more than a little when Disney Inc attempts to own childhood fantasy and retroactively copyright/trademark/turn-into-disney-IP all kinds of things that were part of the childhood psyche-scape long before Uncle Walt was even born.

Last time I checked, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was in Grimm's Fairy Tales, a compilation of European folk stories that existed long before Walt Disney or copyright/trademark laws. As the dad of three, it bugs me more than a little when Disney Inc attempts to own childhood fantasy and retroactively copyright/trademark/turn-into-disney-IP all kinds of things that were part of the childhood psyche-scape long before Uncle Walt was even born.

I think the problem is the fact that they took disneyland/disneyworld's magical kingdom and copied the characters pretty close to verbatim. The story may be public domain, but artistic renderings are different.

What is disturbing is the fact that that Disney released this film in 1937, and good old walt died in December 1966. Some of their earlier would should be in the public domain by now if the copyright law wasn't extended.

Remember that the term of copyright was only extended in the US. In China the protection term [wikisource.org] is still life+50years for personally owned works or 50 years since publication for companies. The film is public domain in China. (Incidentally a film published in 1937 is also public domain [copyright.org.au] in Australia.)

EU and American copyright laws only apply within the borders of those nations and no international treaty requires a term of more than 50 years for copyright. Therefore the CTEA aka Sono Bono Copyright Act aka Mickey Mouse Protection Act, are irrelevant in China.

This is an interesting expression of the saturation of global culture, and how, despite the perceived barriers between easter and western societies, these gaps are slowly dissolving. What i find most interesting is that, as far as i can tell, the park is so popular - legal issues aside, this does imply within the Chinese population some tension between the west and the east has been eased. Although this is perhaps not the best place to find shared cultural values, it is a start, and i think it would do well for Disney not to castigate the government of China, but rather try to reach some sort of compromise or understanding. Unfortunately, being that they are a corporation, it is unlikely that they will see anything but a lawsuit. One can hope, but that hope is likely misplaced.

I think it is time that the copyrights from 1920 or so expire for the enjoyment of all.

Yeah, not bloody likely. Disney is the reason no copyright will ever expire again. Since they have "property" that would expire once the latest copyright extension they purchased rolls around, they have no choice but to purchase another one.

And why should these things expire? Since it's your "intellectual property", shouldn't it be yours forever? And when "you" are a company, "forever" can actually mean forever.

My feeling is that any economy built upon intellectual property is a house of cards. Sooner or later, someone just decides not to play. They simply declare themselves as rich as you are. It's like a bubble market: it only has value as long as everyone buys into the delusion that it has value... then it goes "pop!".
If a country with all the manufacturing infrastructure and a country with all the legal IP rights to that tech have a conflict, is there really any doubt who wins?

Details a US that suffers greatly when far east countries simply cancel 'intellectual property' and copy the hell out of anything and everything. Sure you can try import bans, but with their goods being even cheaper than before, since no IP tax to pay, who worldwide would bother about the US feelings? Despite what many in the US seem to think, its only a small percentage of the world market anyway (only 22.7% of china's exports go to the US). Goods are smuggled in, com

Who do you think has the stronger side: the one producing real products and adding real value, or the one producing only "IP", i.e. something that has no intrinsic value?People can live without official licence for this and that (can live without movies for that matter but could also just ignore copyrights and do what they like). The US would get in real trouble without importing real products such as food, chips, steel etc. etc. Of course the US could try to transform itself back into a nation that adds re

There is nothing legally wrong with the Chinese government doing this; they're a sovereign country, they get to decide how much copyright and trademark law they want to have. Now, the US government can say "poor ol' Disney is suffering, we'd like you to stop this, so let's make a deal". But arguments like "it's not right" aren't going to be very convincing.

They're particularly unconvincing given that, by all rights, Mickey Mouse ought to be in the public domain by now. Other nations can have completely reasonable copyright terms and Mickey Mouse would still be in the public domain. It's the US that's unusual and unreasonable by having protected Mickey Mouse for another couple of decades through the Sonny Bono copyright extension act.

The public domain and limited copyright terms, two basic American rights, have been under attack in the US for the past century, and they have been replaced, effectively, with unlimited ownership of intellectual property. That's the real problem we need to address because that's what's really un-American.

The Shijinshan Amusement Park was built more than 20 years ago. Not sure if the PRC has established diplomatic ties with USA yet, yet alone intellectual property treaties.
Also, twenty years ago there was practically not such thing as "intellectual property" in China (ah, the good old days). There was a very famous brand of candy from Shanghai named "Mickymouse", with Disney's Mickymouse as its logo. Later, when China opened its market to the West, Disney realized that in China, the "Mickymouse" trademark was legally owned by the candy factory, so it paid big money and brought it back. It was reported in the newspaper that many Chinese children cried that day as their beloved "Mickymouse" candy was no more (oh, the evil Americans)...

When I was living in Taiwan, which isn't China but it's close enough, I encountered this sort of thing constantly. It permeates Chinese culture in ways few can imagine. Hell, I think it's just a fact of life all throughout Asia, it's almost the same in Korea, and common Japan, although it's a little more subtle there. It really is just a way of life.

Some shop opens up somewhere selling a particular kind of desert and becomes successful. Within 6 months there are maybe a dozen to be found within that city. Someone designs a particularly striking advertisement and it's only a matter of time because imitators appear. A news agency updates their look and almost over night everyone else does to.

You see it in small things too. My wife corresponds with an online community of Taiwanese living in the States. She has a blog, as many do. She has a fairly distinctive writing style which suits her personality. Inevitably someone came along and started copying her writing style. It got to a point where this particular girl started writing about the very same things my wife had written about previously.

China adds yet another dimension to this absurdity. Most people there are poor. We hear all this talk about the booming economy, the burgeoning middle class and all that. But the fact is that most Chinese are poor. And I mean living in poverty to a point that the so-called poor in the US haven't experienced. What does this mean? They can't afford all the shiny, impressive and absurdly expensive products made by foreign companies. So what have some enterprising Chinese done? They've made cheap, inexpensive knockoffs. Most are pure garbage, but they cost next to nothing and provide some level of the functionality found in the expensive foreign product. Some people may even be fooled into thinking they've purchased the real thing.

This sort of thing used to really frustrate me. Especially when it affect my work directly. At the time I'd think about how great it was that no one could get away with this sort of thing in the US.

But then I realized two things. First, it does happen in the US. Companies here just happen to be more careful about how they go about it. Look at Hollywood, and worse, look at the game industry. It's only logical that when people see something that has led to success they try to emulate it. The easiest way to enjoy some of that success is to resort to copying.

This leads me to the second thing I realized. I've come to think this is a good thing, within limits of course. There's a point at which a company or an individual has just gone too far and measures need to be taken.

Nevertheless, this sort of thing keeps innovators on their toes. It forces them to be competitive. Like I mentioned earlier, copying is a way of life in Asia. It means that people aren't sitting trying to figure out how to go about suing the offending party. They aren't whining to the government that someone has just ripped them off. Instead, their moving on to something else. In some cases, as it was with us, the frame of mind is one of trying to raise the bar further, to stand out from the imitators.

The other advantage here is that the imitators are slowly improving their own skill sets. They're being exposed to new ideas and learning from them, even if they don't realize it at the time. But it's something, over a long period of time that I believe leads to real progress.

The reality is that in most cases the imitations will never be anywhere near as good as the originals. So the ones actually producing something unique will always have the advantage. So as long as they don't get lazy they should be fine. If their in a situation where they're being seriously threatened by those copying it's almost certain they're doing something wrong.

I'm not suggesting a free-for-all where people can copy with impunity. Patents and copyrights are reasonable to a certain extent. I just feel that in some cases things have gotten out of hand. A real free market shouldn't have the absurd level of protectionism some companies seem to expect.

"When I was living in Taiwan, which isn't China but it's close enough"

As an ethnic Taiwanese... no... no it's not. Do not confuse a totalitarian dictatorship with no semblance of human rights with an American-styled democracy. Please. It insults all of us.

That being said, I do agree that in Chinese culture there is little in the way of respect for intellectual property. Imitation is expected for all things popular and good, making most creative products a commodity (like your dessert example). This is

The United States is so dependent on cheap crap made in China it's not even funny. Take a look around your house and look for "Made in China". There's a good chance you have more stuff made in China than made in all other countries combined. Any serious trade embargos against China would end up hurting us a whole lot more than it would hurt them.

And don't even think about war. China has nukes. Not to mention they can have more people in their army than the U.S. has people.